What to do with Level 3 - Parramatta Leagues Club

[Suitman]

Thats right, I agree, and thats how it should be and how it has been since god knows when.

I only raise what is in the constitution, because it has been taken as a given and spoken to as if the constitution means the leagues club has to fund an NRL side - which is doesnt.

What's changed? Well, 3P want to change the current structure, so I think questions like this, like what is the leagues club obliged to do is an important part of the discussion as to how putting the NRL operations in the hands of the FC provides a more guaranteed future for the Parramatta Eels as a stand alone entity.

My understanding is though, and I could be wrong, is that it's not being done to secure the finacial viability of the club, but as a historical and traditional idea, which I come to understand means that the Football Club should look after all football matters.
3P have expressed a desire to increase revenue through the football club, thus taking some of the fianancial burdon away from the Leagues Club.
TBH, shouldn't we be doing this anyway, even under the current board and structure?

You do raise valid points. However, I'm yet to be convinced of the arguments as to why the NRL operations were taken away from the Football club in the first place.

Suity

 

[strider]

Isn't the MAIN reason (maybe only reason?) the NRL team is under control of the LC because the players/football staff wanted security after what happened at the Northern Eagles? ..... I seem to recall MITS saying BS and Shifcofske(?) spoke at the board meeting saying they wanted it ...... because at the end of the day we had the same board controlling both clubs, so what the hell difference did it make to the LC when their board ran the other board anyway?

 

[The Colonel]

Looks like there was a heap of abnormals though. They spent $8M on renos for the smokers and had a heap of disruption during construction which attributed to the drop in revenue.

Coming of a $14 million gain the previous year it looks to be abnormal. Be interesting to see 2008 though.

 

[fish eel]

My understanding is though, and I could be wrong, is that it's not being done to secure the finacial viability of the club, but as a historical and traditional idea, which I come to understand means that the Football Club should look after all football matters.

Well, if it is only being done on that basis, I really dont see the point.

What concerns me ATM is viability, not a feel good throwback to yesteryear in terms of structure.

3P have expressed a desire to increase revenue through the football club, thus taking some of the fianancial burdon away from the Leagues Club.
TBH, shouldn't we be doing this anyway, even under the current board and structure?

I think thats a given.

More money being generated on the football side, the better.

You do raise valid points. However, I'm yet to be convinced of the arguments as to why the NRL operations were taken away from the Football club in the first place.

Suity

Yeah, I guess my view is though, that the change has already been made, so it is up to those wanting to change back to argue their case.

 

[Suitman]

Not sure about 2008

http://www.panthers.com.au/ContentFiles/Portal/Documents/PRLCLtd 07.pdf

2007, according to the above, was a net loss of $10,483,000.

Page 6.

Thanks Colonel.

Be interesting to see how their '08 figures pulled up.

Also interesting to see that they have combined assets of over 190 million, and are planning further measures to overcome the new laws.

Suity

 

[strider]

Well, if it is only being done on that basis, I really dont see the point.

What concerns me ATM is viability, not a feel good throwback to yesteryear in terms of structure.



I think thats a given.

More money being generated on the football side, the better.



Yeah, I guess my view is though, that the change has already been made, so it is up to those wanting to change back to argue their case.

well i reckon the point should be that - there are 2 different boards (well there should be) and that the FC board should have ppl good at running a FC and the LC board should have ppl good at running a LC .... and ideally you'd get the best management of each built on the basis that they both should compliment and foster eachother

 

[Suitman]

Isn't the MAIN reason (maybe only reason?) the NRL team is under control of the LC because the players/football staff wanted security after what happened at the Northern Eagles? ..... I seem to recall MITS saying BS and Shifcofske(?) spoke at the board meeting saying they wanted it ...... because at the end of the day we had the same board controlling both clubs, so what the hell difference did it make to the LC when their board ran the other board anyway?

Mmmmm.

Suity

 

[Gronk]

Thanks Colonel.

Be interesting to see how their '08 figures pulled up.

Also interesting to see that they have combined assets of over 190 million, and are planning further measures to overcome the new laws.

Suity

They have a pretty impressive Penrith board as well which provide a hell of a lot of experience in all facets of business.

It will be interesting to see who 3P propose and their respective business backgrounds. Might be a good time to list the candidates and a short run down on what they bring to the table.

 

[strider]

They have a pretty impressive Penrith board as well which provide a hell of a lot of experience in all facets of business.

It will be interesting to see who 3P propose and their respective business backgrounds. Might be a good time to list the candidates and a short run down on what they bring to the table.

Col said they'll be doing that mid-Feb

 

[Suitman]

They have a pretty impressive Penrith board as well which provide a hell of a lot of experience in all facets of business.

Yes, I noticed that.

Suity

 

[mickdo]

well i reckon the point should be that - there are 2 different boards (well there should be) and that the FC board should have ppl good at running a FC and the LC board should have ppl good at running a LC .... and ideally you'd get the best management of each built on the basis that they both should compliment and foster eachother

I agree, and I think that is one of the main reasons why I would like to see the NRL side under FC control again. I have no problem with having a set minimum number of board members being common across the two boards, but by the same token there should also be a set maximum so that the two boards cannot be identical, and the best interests of both entities can be met by their respective separate boards instead of the conflict of interest that existed previously.

 

[forward pass]

Pretty scary that the Panthers can't turn a profit considering their club is a motel also, has numerous conference facilities and they would be earning rent on McDonalds, Krispy Kreme, KFC etc etc etc.

But can also add that they are significantly expanding the club too.

 

[Suitman]

I agree, and I think that is one of the main reasons why I would like to see the NRL side under FC control again. I have no problem with having a set minimum number of board members being common across the two boards, but by the same token there should also be a set maximum so that the two boards cannot be identical, and the best interests of both entities can be met by their respective separate boards instead of the conflict of interest that existed previously.

That's just common sense really, which still begs the question why it was done in the first place.
The Northern Eagles analogy doesn't wash with me, moreso considering both boards were the same.
They were never going to do an Ivan Milat, were they now?

Suity

 

[strider]

its funny - cos in a way I can understand that there is the same board for both - my mind sometimes thinks it should all just be 1 thing

cos lets face it - if the LC should be looking after their own interests of doing clubby things like helping ppl kill brain cells, fill their lungs with cancer and piss their hard earned away down a pokie coin slot, then their board should be being VERY stingey when it comes to giving money away to a football team

 

[Stagger eel]

its funny - cos in a way I can understand that there is the same board for both - my mind sometimes thinks it should all just be 1 thing

cos lets face it - if the LC should be looking after their own interests of doing clubby things like helping ppl kill brain cells, fill their lungs with cancer and piss their hard earned away down a pokie coin slot, then their board should be being VERY stingey when it comes to giving money away to a football team

I really don't think we'll ever have a committment issue with the leagues club board towards the football club it's the accountability, or lack of it that concerns me..

The 3P group have made it clear that they will put forward a business orientaded group to take on the current board in May..but more importantly it will be a group that that will be committed to the survival of rugby league at the top level and grassroots level.

for the record I believe the current also have their heart in the right place.

 

[strider]

I really don't think we'll ever have a committment issue with the leagues club board towards the football club it's the accountability, or lack of it that concerns me..

The 3P group have made it clear that they will put forward a business orientaded group to take on the current board in May..but more importantly it will be a group that that will be committed to the survival of rugby league at the top level and grassroots level.

for the record I believe the current also have their heart in the right place.

so what if 10yrs down the track, some group decide that gambler's rights is what matters and they get control of the board cos a big amount of the LC members agree with them and they decide that $10m is waaaaaay too much to be giving to rugby league cos they are a club who looks after their members interests first and foremost?

 

[The Colonel]

so what if 10yrs down the track, some group decide that gambler's rights is what matters and they get control of the board cos a big amount of the LC members agree with them and they decide that $10m is waaaaaay too much to be giving to rugby league cos they are a club who looks after their members interests first and foremost?

There is a decent enough chance that could happen with the club being under the Leagues Club banner anyway. I seem to remember a few "dissidents" at meetings in the past wanting the club to do away with the Football side of things so they could get cheaper roasts and half price coffee.

 

[bartman]

G,day Mate Yes I do try to visit the club on most days and I do appreciate the improvment ideas I have been reading and will work hard to develop them.
Unfortunately our club needs to have a good poker machine area to improve our income.
My first love is our rugby league and our only real source of income is through our gaming area.
Last year our contribution to cover the loss in league was in excess of $6million this as well as the years increase in gaming tax $6.3million will result in our club recording a loss for the year.
Mate I appreciate your comments and assure you I will do my best to keep our club afloat...OVO

Thanks for your comment and reply Ovo.

I guess it all comes down to money in the end... but I can't help but think that the chase for this pokies money and what the club has turned into in the process has forced the footy fans out of the club? There are no spaces to come and just sit, be or meet.

It's just not inviting anymore, the third floor really needs to be a (proper) sports bar (of the type that are available elsewhere) and fast, to get the footy-based LC members coming back in their numbers and some extra money coming in.

 

[fish eel]

There is a decent enough chance that could happen with the club being under the Leagues Club banner anyway. I seem to remember a few "dissidents" at meetings in the past wanting the club to do away with the Football side of things so they could get cheaper roasts and half price coffee.

Yes, there is a chance it could happen under both structures.

 

[Suitman]

for the record I believe the current also have their heart in the right place.

I don't think that one poster has ever suggested that they don't.


Suity